Ohio officials to decide on resuming executions

Ohio’s procedure is not identical to that of Kentucky.

COLUMBUS (AP) — The prosecution of Ohio’s death penalty cases received a boost Wednesday when the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Kentucky’s similar lethal injection procedure.

The decision, however, does not necessarily quash the claims of a group of Ohio death row inmates who argue that Ohio’s lethal injection procedure violates the constitutional ban on cruel and unusual punishment. There are roughly 20 inmates who are close to having execution dates set.

“This pushed it back to the states to decide what [the decision] means for them,” said Doug Berman, a law professor at Ohio State University.

Death penalty cases in Ohio had stopped moving over the past several months while the U.S. Supreme Court took up a case by Kentucky inmates who alleged that there were more humane ways to carry out executions than the state’s three-drug injection regimen. The court ruled Wednesday that the inmates hadn’t met the burden of proof in showing that Kentucky’s procedure, along with its failure to adopt a different and untested measure, constituted cruel and unusual punishment.

Ohio’s death-penalty cases, which weren’t under a formal moratorium, could now begin moving again. But the speed at which they do so depends on how quickly or forcefully top state officials, such as the governor or attorney general, respond to the decision, Berman said.

They could ask courts to dismiss appeals from death-row inmates based on the Supreme Court decision, for example.

Gov. Ted Strickland said he hadn’t yet been able to determine the legal ramifications of the decision.

Ohio also uses a regimen to sedate, paralyze and kill inmates, although its procedure is not identical.

“You would just think that because the methodology is quite similar that the legal outcome would be similar as well,” Strickland said. “But I just don’t want to make that assumption without having a little deeper understanding about what they said.”

The Supreme Court ruling means that Ohio’s lethal injection procedure would be found constitutional, said Ohio Solicitor General Bill Marshall, who represents Ohio Attorney General Marc Dann in appellate cases.

“Those who raised a question of the constitutionality of lethal injection are going to be faced with a precedent that will basically end their procedures,” Marshall said.

But other legal experts said the Supreme Court ruling was narrow in that it only addressed the specific procedure used in Kentucky. The state Public Defenders Office noted the court opinion remarked that part of its decision was based on the fact that Kentucky hadn’t had any documented problems with executions.

“Obviously a difference in Ohio is we have had problems,” said spokeswoman Amy Borror.

Last May, the execution of Christopher Newton took 16 minutes after the chemical started flowing — and his stomach heaved, his chin quivered and twitched and his body twice mildly convulsed within its restraints. The Ohio Department of Correction and Rehabilitation says the process should take eight to 10 minutes.

In May 2006, the execution of Joseph Clark also took considerably longer than normal, and those administering the drugs had a hard time finding a suitable vein.

There are currently two major sets of death penalty litigation occurring in Ohio. Roughly 20 death-row inmates have signed on to a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of lethal injection. The U.S. Supreme Court must first resolve a procedural dispute before a judge in Ohio can resolve the decision on its merits.

There are also two defendants who are charged with murder who are arguing that Ohio’s lethal injection procedure violates state statute, which calls for a quick and painless death.